Making the case for "Low-Speed Rail"

[CHamilton]

These comments will sound familiar to many of us, but it's an interesting article nonetheless.

Low-Speed Rail

Architect & urbanist Robert Orr, from New Haven, CT wrote a piece on his Facebook page this week that really caught my eye.

Appended below, Robert makes an excellent case for why we it would make more sense to focus on an incremental approach to improving our rail network, rather than leaping into very expensive true high-speed rail (HSR).

The push to improve our rail network is often couched in an either-or mindset. Either we must have true HSR, like Europe and Japan, or we are must stick to funding highways and airports. In fact, there really is a third way forward, much like Robert mentions. We could make incremental improvements, with very modest expenditures, that would dramatically improve our passenger rail network in the entire country.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I agree with this guy. I think passenger rail can use existing equipment and run at 110 mph and still be successful, though not making a profit.

 

[Anderson]

I'm going to dispute the notion that non-HSR operations can't be profitable, or at least that they can't break even. It will depend on the size of the market and some other factors, but I find it highly dubious that you're not going to get routes that can break even or bring net revenue in versus operating expenses at 90-125 MPH. Considering what has shown up on the extended NEC in several places, it seems very likely that you'll get at least a few of the routes operating in the black (or if they /are/ showing losses, doing so because of fares that are held back for political reasons).

I will grant that it's not likely that a large system with lots of coverage (witness the proposed Midwest HSR network...there are enough cases of redundant routes in some places that at least a few of those routes aren't going to make money (look at some of the spurs in Iowa, for example). However, I think you'll get enough corridors making money to keep the overall operating subsidy requirements very low for the time being.

In the long run? I think the overall thing might actually get to the point that it can cover operating expenses and put money towards capital needs. Longer-term gas price trends, troubles in the airline industry, and so forth seem likely to see to that. At that point, the question of whether things will be profitable isn't going to come down to demand as much as it is "How dense do you want coverage to be?"

Edit: Actually, the FEC service is quite possibly a case-in-point with respect to this: Not only is the whole thing running at or below 125 MPH (and only 1/6 of the route is set to be able to manage that), but a fair portion is only going at or below 90 MPH while the balance is going 110 MPH.

 

[me_little_me]

I have always been a believer in the fact that what will be the most cost effective is rail that is better than alternative transportation rather than trying to worry about how fast the train can go on the best stretch of track. That is:

• It has to be faster than private car (my startpoint to my endpoint, not just station to station).
• It has to overcome the convenience of car travel (I can take anything or anyone that fits in my car)
• It has to overcome the cost of gas and tolls value of driving because few people count wear and tear. (not necessarily cheaper but other factors such as comfort, speed, etc. override the cost)
• It has to be consistent (average trip time means nothing if sometimes it is on time and other times really late)
• It has to be better than a plane (its amenities overcome the plane's speed advantage)
• It has to be better than an intercity bus (its amenities overcome a bus's price advantage)
• It has to be enjoyable (Amtrak's weaknesses include smelly toilets that sometimes don't work and too many less-than-good staff)
• It works best if it is integrated ( trains that stop at the major city's airport as well as downtown; that coordinate/co-locate with local trains and buses; stations with reasonable/free nearby safe parking)

 

[Anderson]

I have always been a believer in the fact that what will be the most cost effective is rail that is better than alternative transportation rather than trying to worry about how fast the train can go on the best stretch of track. That is:

• It has to be faster than private car (my startpoint to my endpoint, not just station to station).
• It has to overcome the convenience of car travel (I can take anything or anyone that fits in my car)
• It has to overcome the cost of gas and tolls value of driving because few people count wear and tear. (not necessarily cheaper but other factors such as comfort, speed, etc. override the cost)
• It has to be consistent (average trip time means nothing if sometimes it is on time and other times really late)
• It has to be better than a plane (its amenities overcome the plane's speed advantage)
• It has to be better than an intercity bus (its amenities overcome a bus's price advantage)
• It has to be enjoyable (Amtrak's weaknesses include smelly toilets that sometimes don't work and too many less-than-good staff)
• It works best if it is integrated ( trains that stop at the major city's airport as well as downtown; that coordinate/co-locate with local trains and buses; stations with reasonable/free nearby safe parking)

Well, a lot of these are going to be situation-dependent. For example, the first two points (and indeed the bus point) can apply in plenty of situations even if the train can't quite make an interstate's posted speed for the simple fact that...well, often the traffic on the interstate can't make that speed, either. Likewise, there's certainly a major "delay risk" on I-95 in many states...so if a train can reliably go from Richmond to Washington in 2:00 and the interstate might take 1:40 if traffic cooperates or take 3:00+ if there's a wreck and you hit rush hour, who wins?

Edit: One other factor...parking at my destination. For example, parking in downtown Richmond costs $10-15/day. In downtown DC, that can be $20+, and in other cities I might have to park outside of downtown and ride in. The train at least balances out against these considerations.

 

[George Harris]

"Faster than a private car" can mean faster than normal drive time plus stop for a meal time if the trip is in the range 3 to 4 hours or longer.

Anything much under 4 hours will be plane competitive when you consider the into and out of airport hassle. This is even more true if you have reports to read, etc or other things you want to do while traveling. The entire time you are on the train can be useful, which is a far cry from dealing with a flight.

Note the passenger loading on the LA to San Diego trains. These trains take 2 hours 45 minuges over a distance that can be driven in 2 hours, however, the drive time is probably only possible between 2 and 4 in the morning.

 

[Anderson]

"Faster than a private car" can mean faster than normal drive time plus stop for a meal time if the trip is in the range 3 to 4 hours or longer.

Anything much under 4 hours will be plane competitive when you consider the into and out of airport hassle. This is even more true if you have reports to read, etc or other things you want to do while traveling. The entire time you are on the train can be useful, which is a far cry from dealing with a flight.

Note the passenger loading on the LA to San Diego trains. These trains take 2 hours 45 minuges over a distance that can be driven in 2 hours, however, the drive time is probably only possible between 2 and 4 in the morning.

The point is taken there, and I don't imagine that the sheer unpleasantness of that drive one you get into LA helps. I suspect that it doesn't hurt that the LA-SD market is what I'll term a "legacy market": There's been multiple-daily service on that stretch for over a century, so making use of that service is really something that never "went away".

It's also probably worth noting that even in some of the longer markets (internal markets within Florida), the number of direct flights can be rather thin (i.e. you only have about 3 nonstop frequencies between JAX-MIA, TPA-MIA, and JAX-TPA) if they even exist (JAX-ORL has zilch direct), while once you add in layovers, you not only lose time in the length of the trip getting padded out, you lose "productive time" in having to bolt between planes and run the risk of delays making things...er...interesting at transfer time.

Just to chew over the math, the four hours (and change) of flight time+layover that a JAX-ATL-MIA flight usually takes (most seem to fall in the 3:50-4:20 range) translates into about 5-6 hours of "trip time" once you factor in security (Miami can be a zoo) and other airport "fun".

In such a case, I'm going to hazard that the 2:30-2:40 MIA-Cocoa is probably going to translate into about 5:00 or so MIA-JAX, maybe a little less, even if you allow for 2-3 stops to be added to the train (Cocoa is about 5/9 the way to Jacksonville, and that stretch will likely not be burdened by the same 79 MPH operations in South Florida that FEC can't quite get around).

And actually, that's the other element of this that gives the train an edge: It can hit multiple city pairs, and where only one pair (say JAX-MIA) might barely support an operation, adding in others (JAX-WPB, JAX-FLL) where they don't even bother can be a big edge to the train.

 

[rrdude]

I agree with this guy. I think passenger rail can use existing equipment and run at 110 mph and still be successful, though not making a profit.

Unless and until you hold every other form of government-subsidized transportation, and include ALL the actual government allocated funds to that form of transportation (TSA, Flight Controllers, new airport construction, levee building, dredging of canals, new highway construction-maintenance, etc., etc.) I'd back off the "...make a profit..." statements for rail travel.

I think WE ALL KNOW that pax rail gets a ****-poor share of the government allocated transpo funds, but pax rail is a HUGE bulls-eye for the cost cutters and so called "budget slashers".

I know there are many ways to define "profit" but I'd be happy with a high-percentage of fare-box /over the rails recovery.......... Not a single pax travel related company in the USA that I can think of fully covers their cost. Not even SWA, Greyhound, Bolt, Yellow-Cab, etc., etc. They all enjoy a HUGE infrastructure subsidy, (roads, TSA, airports, snowplows in winter, etc., etc, that railroads in the USA just don't)

 

[Shawn Ryu]

Airports if properly ran can be profitable though, which is why there are many privately owned airports in Europe.

 

[Anderson]

Airports if properly ran can be profitable though, which is why there are many privately owned airports in Europe.

True, though how many of these are major airports that weren't built with at least major loan backing from the government, if not built by the government outright and then sold off?

 

[George Harris]

Note the passenger loading on the LA to San Diego trains. These trains take 2 hours 45 minuges over a distance that can be driven in 2 hours, however, the drive time is probably only possible between 2 and 4 in the morning.

The point is taken there, and I don't imagine that the sheer unpleasantness of that drive one you get into LA helps. I suspect that it doesn't hurt that the LA-SD market is what I'll term a "legacy market": There's been multiple-daily service on that stretch for over a century, so making use of that service is really something that never "went away".

However, it was pretty thin by the time Amtrak came along and in the early days of Amtrak. I think it was 2 or 3 trains per day at that time. It is now up to somewhere around 8 and with heavy passenger loadings. It could be faster but the local bluff top and other neighboring NIMBY's have successfully opposed both electrification and double tracking. As to cure reduction, don't even bring it up. Air pollution for the diesels? A non issue for these people. They decided that the overhead electrication poles and wires was too unsightly. Environmental benefits from moving traffic off roads and onto rails? They were not interested in a whole picture analysis or discussion. It was only rail versus nothing, and anything relating to rail was a negative.

 

[AlanB]

It is now up to somewhere around 8 and with heavy passenger loadings.

Actually there are 11 trains per day in each direction between San Diego & LA.

 

[crescentfan]

I agree with this guy. I think passenger rail can use existing equipment and run at 110 mph and still be successful, though not making a profit.

Unless and until you hold every other form of government-subsidized transportation, and include ALL the actual government allocated funds to that form of transportation (TSA, Flight Controllers, new airport construction, levee building, dredging of canals, new highway construction-maintenance, etc., etc.) I'd back off the "...make a profit..." statements for rail travel.

I think WE ALL KNOW that pax rail gets a ****-poor share of the government allocated transpo funds, but pax rail is a HUGE bulls-eye for the cost cutters and so called "budget slashers".

I know there are many ways to define "profit" but I'd be happy with a high-percentage of fare-box /over the rails recovery.......... Not a single pax travel related company in the USA that I can think of fully covers their cost. Not even SWA, Greyhound, Bolt, Yellow-Cab, etc., etc. They all enjoy a HUGE infrastructure subsidy, (roads, TSA, airports, snowplows in winter, etc., etc, that railroads in the USA just don't)

Well said! All other forms of transportation get mega-subsidies (FAA, airports, highways, etc.). Politicians (and many constituents) seem to forget that when the subject of Amtrak comes up. Of course it needs subsidies, as do the rest of the world's passenger railroads.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I have always been a believer in the fact that what will be the most cost effective is rail that is better than alternative transportation rather than trying to worry about how fast the train can go on the best stretch of track. That is:

• It has to be faster than private car (my startpoint to my endpoint, not just station to station).
• It has to overcome the convenience of car travel (I can take anything or anyone that fits in my car)
• It has to overcome the cost of gas and tolls value of driving because few people count wear and tear. (not necessarily cheaper but other factors such as comfort, speed, etc. override the cost)
• It has to be consistent (average trip time means nothing if sometimes it is on time and other times really late)
• It has to be better than a plane (its amenities overcome the plane's speed advantage)
• It has to be better than an intercity bus (its amenities overcome a bus's price advantage)
• It has to be enjoyable (Amtrak's weaknesses include smelly toilets that sometimes don't work and too many less-than-good staff)
• It works best if it is integrated ( trains that stop at the major city's airport as well as downtown; that coordinate/co-locate with local trains and buses; stations with reasonable/free nearby safe parking)

1. Not too hard with 90 mph and over as long as the car driver does not overspeed. The problem is that many car drivers do overspeed, while some take rest stops much more than others.

2. Due to the large size of the train, this should not be a problem, especially with free checked baggage.

3. I must point out that one must count all costs for transport. Thus cars need fuel, tolls, insurence, registration, and maintainence. These costs add up pretty high. It gets confusing when you squeeze many people into a car or when you drive by yourself. Another thing to consider is that driving can cause fatigue and is much more dangerous than trains.

4. Highly unpredictable unless you own the track yourself.

5. Not hard to do, trains are already more comfy and relaxing than planes.

6. Again, not hard to do.

7. Less-than-good staff is not gonna change much because you can't make a unhappy guy into a happy guy on the dime. Restrooms can improve but I've never had too much problems, after all there are lots of restrooms on the train.

8. Not hard to do but LDs don't need to stop at the airport. I do agree that there need to be better intregation not only with other transport but with other Amtrak trains.

"Faster than a private car" can mean faster than normal drive time plus stop for a meal time if the trip is in the range 3 to 4 hours or longer.

Anything much under 4 hours will be plane competitive when you consider the into and out of airport hassle. This is even more true if you have reports to read, etc or other things you want to do while traveling. The entire time you are on the train can be useful, which is a far cry from dealing with a flight.

Note the passenger loading on the LA to San Diego trains. These trains take 2 hours 45 minuges over a distance that can be driven in 2 hours, however, the drive time is probably only possible between 2 and 4 in the morning.

The point is taken there, and I don't imagine that the sheer unpleasantness of that drive one you get into LA helps. I suspect that it doesn't hurt that the LA-SD market is what I'll term a "legacy market": There's been multiple-daily service on that stretch for over a century, so making use of that service is really something that never "went away".

It's also probably worth noting that even in some of the longer markets (internal markets within Florida), the number of direct flights can be rather thin (i.e. you only have about 3 nonstop frequencies between JAX-MIA, TPA-MIA, and JAX-TPA) if they even exist (JAX-ORL has zilch direct), while once you add in layovers, you not only lose time in the length of the trip getting padded out, you lose "productive time" in having to bolt between planes and run the risk of delays making things...er...interesting at transfer time.

Just to chew over the math, the four hours (and change) of flight time+layover that a JAX-ATL-MIA flight usually takes (most seem to fall in the 3:50-4:20 range) translates into about 5-6 hours of "trip time" once you factor in security (Miami can be a zoo) and other airport "fun".

In such a case, I'm going to hazard that the 2:30-2:40 MIA-Cocoa is probably going to translate into about 5:00 or so MIA-JAX, maybe a little less, even if you allow for 2-3 stops to be added to the train (Cocoa is about 5/9 the way to Jacksonville, and that stretch will likely not be burdened by the same 79 MPH operations in South Florida that FEC can't quite get around).

And actually, that's the other element of this that gives the train an edge: It can hit multiple city pairs, and where only one pair (say JAX-MIA) might barely support an operation, adding in others (JAX-WPB, JAX-FLL) where they don't even bother can be a big edge to the train.

One thing you're not taken into account is that regional flights are often extremly expensive when not booked coonecting to mainline flights. Ths make flying an even worse option.

I agree with this guy. I think passenger rail can use existing equipment and run at 110 mph and still be successful, though not making a profit.

Unless and until you hold every other form of government-subsidized transportation, and include ALL the actual government allocated funds to that form of transportation (TSA, Flight Controllers, new airport construction, levee building, dredging of canals, new highway construction-maintenance, etc., etc.) I'd back off the "...make a profit..." statements for rail travel.

I don't understand what you mean. I said "not making a profit". I did not say it would make a profit or even break even. By "successful" I mean good enough to keep them in service without too much difficulty.

 

[Anderson]

"Faster than a private car" can mean faster than normal drive time plus stop for a meal time if the trip is in the range 3 to 4 hours or longer.

Anything much under 4 hours will be plane competitive when you consider the into and out of airport hassle. This is even more true if you have reports to read, etc or other things you want to do while traveling. The entire time you are on the train can be useful, which is a far cry from dealing with a flight.

Note the passenger loading on the LA to San Diego trains. These trains take 2 hours 45 minuges over a distance that can be driven in 2 hours, however, the drive time is probably only possible between 2 and 4 in the morning.

The point is taken there, and I don't imagine that the sheer unpleasantness of that drive one you get into LA helps. I suspect that it doesn't hurt that the LA-SD market is what I'll term a "legacy market": There's been multiple-daily service on that stretch for over a century, so making use of that service is really something that never "went away".

It's also probably worth noting that even in some of the longer markets (internal markets within Florida), the number of direct flights can be rather thin (i.e. you only have about 3 nonstop frequencies between JAX-MIA, TPA-MIA, and JAX-TPA) if they even exist (JAX-ORL has zilch direct), while once you add in layovers, you not only lose time in the length of the trip getting padded out, you lose "productive time" in having to bolt between planes and run the risk of delays making things...er...interesting at transfer time.

Just to chew over the math, the four hours (and change) of flight time+layover that a JAX-ATL-MIA flight usually takes (most seem to fall in the 3:50-4:20 range) translates into about 5-6 hours of "trip time" once you factor in security (Miami can be a zoo) and other airport "fun".

In such a case, I'm going to hazard that the 2:30-2:40 MIA-Cocoa is probably going to translate into about 5:00 or so MIA-JAX, maybe a little less, even if you allow for 2-3 stops to be added to the train (Cocoa is about 5/9 the way to Jacksonville, and that stretch will likely not be burdened by the same 79 MPH operations in South Florida that FEC can't quite get around).

And actually, that's the other element of this that gives the train an edge: It can hit multiple city pairs, and where only one pair (say JAX-MIA) might barely support an operation, adding in others (JAX-WPB, JAX-FLL) where they don't even bother can be a big edge to the train.

One thing you're not taken into account is that regional flights are often extremly expensive when not booked coonecting to mainline flights. Ths make flying an even worse option.

It depends. The lowest-cost trips between major cities in FL weren't horridly outrageous.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

"Faster than a private car" can mean faster than normal drive time plus stop for a meal time if the trip is in the range 3 to 4 hours or longer.

Anything much under 4 hours will be plane competitive when you consider the into and out of airport hassle. This is even more true if you have reports to read, etc or other things you want to do while traveling. The entire time you are on the train can be useful, which is a far cry from dealing with a flight.

Note the passenger loading on the LA to San Diego trains. These trains take 2 hours 45 minuges over a distance that can be driven in 2 hours, however, the drive time is probably only possible between 2 and 4 in the morning.

The point is taken there, and I don't imagine that the sheer unpleasantness of that drive one you get into LA helps. I suspect that it doesn't hurt that the LA-SD market is what I'll term a "legacy market": There's been multiple-daily service on that stretch for over a century, so making use of that service is really something that never "went away".

It's also probably worth noting that even in some of the longer markets (internal markets within Florida), the number of direct flights can be rather thin (i.e. you only have about 3 nonstop frequencies between JAX-MIA, TPA-MIA, and JAX-TPA) if they even exist (JAX-ORL has zilch direct), while once you add in layovers, you not only lose time in the length of the trip getting padded out, you lose "productive time" in having to bolt between planes and run the risk of delays making things...er...interesting at transfer time.

Just to chew over the math, the four hours (and change) of flight time+layover that a JAX-ATL-MIA flight usually takes (most seem to fall in the 3:50-4:20 range) translates into about 5-6 hours of "trip time" once you factor in security (Miami can be a zoo) and other airport "fun".

In such a case, I'm going to hazard that the 2:30-2:40 MIA-Cocoa is probably going to translate into about 5:00 or so MIA-JAX, maybe a little less, even if you allow for 2-3 stops to be added to the train (Cocoa is about 5/9 the way to Jacksonville, and that stretch will likely not be burdened by the same 79 MPH operations in South Florida that FEC can't quite get around).

And actually, that's the other element of this that gives the train an edge: It can hit multiple city pairs, and where only one pair (say JAX-MIA) might barely support an operation, adding in others (JAX-WPB, JAX-FLL) where they don't even bother can be a big edge to the train.

One thing you're not taken into account is that regional flights are often extremly expensive when not booked coonecting to mainline flights. Ths make flying an even worse option.

It depends. The lowest-cost trips between major cities in FL weren't horridly outrageous.

Maybe so in FL, but I have seen 200- and 300-mile flights going for $150. Wayyy too expensive.

 

[jebr]

"Faster than a private car" can mean faster than normal drive time plus stop for a meal time if the trip is in the range 3 to 4 hours or longer.

Anything much under 4 hours will be plane competitive when you consider the into and out of airport hassle. This is even more true if you have reports to read, etc or other things you want to do while traveling. The entire time you are on the train can be useful, which is a far cry from dealing with a flight.

Note the passenger loading on the LA to San Diego trains. These trains take 2 hours 45 minuges over a distance that can be driven in 2 hours, however, the drive time is probably only possible between 2 and 4 in the morning.

The point is taken there, and I don't imagine that the sheer unpleasantness of that drive one you get into LA helps. I suspect that it doesn't hurt that the LA-SD market is what I'll term a "legacy market": There's been multiple-daily service on that stretch for over a century, so making use of that service is really something that never "went away".

It's also probably worth noting that even in some of the longer markets (internal markets within Florida), the number of direct flights can be rather thin (i.e. you only have about 3 nonstop frequencies between JAX-MIA, TPA-MIA, and JAX-TPA) if they even exist (JAX-ORL has zilch direct), while once you add in layovers, you not only lose time in the length of the trip getting padded out, you lose "productive time" in having to bolt between planes and run the risk of delays making things...er...interesting at transfer time.

Just to chew over the math, the four hours (and change) of flight time+layover that a JAX-ATL-MIA flight usually takes (most seem to fall in the 3:50-4:20 range) translates into about 5-6 hours of "trip time" once you factor in security (Miami can be a zoo) and other airport "fun".

In such a case, I'm going to hazard that the 2:30-2:40 MIA-Cocoa is probably going to translate into about 5:00 or so MIA-JAX, maybe a little less, even if you allow for 2-3 stops to be added to the train (Cocoa is about 5/9 the way to Jacksonville, and that stretch will likely not be burdened by the same 79 MPH operations in South Florida that FEC can't quite get around).

And actually, that's the other element of this that gives the train an edge: It can hit multiple city pairs, and where only one pair (say JAX-MIA) might barely support an operation, adding in others (JAX-WPB, JAX-FLL) where they don't even bother can be a big edge to the train.

One thing you're not taken into account is that regional flights are often extremly expensive when not booked coonecting to mainline flights. Ths make flying an even worse option.

It depends. The lowest-cost trips between major cities in FL weren't horridly outrageous.

Maybe so in FL, but I have seen 200- and 300-mile flights going for $150. Wayyy too expensive.

Is it, though? Acelas can easily reach $140 between WAS and NYP, which is on the low end of that. Even in more rural areas, it's not a horrible deal, especially on the 300-mile end (it's less than the IRS deduction rate for business travel, which is 59.5 cents/mile, IIRC.)

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

One thing you're not taken into account is that regional flights are often extremly expensive when not booked coonecting to mainline flights. Ths make flying an even worse option.

It depends. The lowest-cost trips between major cities in FL weren't horridly outrageous.

Maybe so in FL, but I have seen 200- and 300-mile flights going for $150. Wayyy too expensive.

Is it, though? Acelas can easily reach $140 between WAS and NYP, which is on the low end of that. Even in more rural areas, it's not a horrible deal, especially on the 300-mile end (it's less than the IRS deduction rate for business travel, which is 59.5 cents/mile, IIRC.)

I don't know. For that distance I can take the train for $30-$50 or the bus for $15-$40 because the bus has so many discounts. And the Acela only has BC and FC, unlike the $150-$200 prices for Y-class on a plane.

 

[Anderson]

Maybe so in FL, but I have seen 200- and 300-mile flights going for $150. Wayyy too expensive.

Is it, though? Acelas can easily reach $140 between WAS and NYP, which is on the low end of that. Even in more rural areas, it's not a horrible deal, especially on the 300-mile end (it's less than the IRS deduction rate for business travel, which is 59.5 cents/mile, IIRC.)

I don't know. For that distance I can take the train for $30-$50 or the bus for $15-$40 because the bus has so many discounts. And the Acela only has BC and FC, unlike the $150-$200 prices for Y-class on a plane.

Again, it depends on the market. Is there a (decent) bus on the route in question? How about a train? Does direct, frequent rail service exist?

 

[jebr]

Maybe so in FL, but I have seen 200- and 300-mile flights going for $150. Wayyy too expensive.

Is it, though? Acelas can easily reach $140 between WAS and NYP, which is on the low end of that. Even in more rural areas, it's not a horrible deal, especially on the 300-mile end (it's less than the IRS deduction rate for business travel, which is 59.5 cents/mile, IIRC.)

I don't know. For that distance I can take the train for $30-$50 or the bus for $15-$40 because the bus has so many discounts. And the Acela only has BC and FC, unlike the $150-$200 prices for Y-class on a plane.

This assumes that the customer is extremely price-sensitive. Most airline passengers are not extremely price-sensitive, in that they will prefer air travel over bus/train/car travel at some level.

Frankly, most leisure travelers won't be on these $150 hops. The target market is business folks. For them, speed is key, and that is something driving or taking the bus cannot offer. Train service is so sporadic outside of the Northeast, California/West Coast, and Chicago areas that train isn't really a viable option for business travelers...who wants to try and schedule their meetings around a once-daily train?

 

[Anderson]

Maybe so in FL, but I have seen 200- and 300-mile flights going for $150. Wayyy too expensive.

Is it, though? Acelas can easily reach $140 between WAS and NYP, which is on the low end of that. Even in more rural areas, it's not a horrible deal, especially on the 300-mile end (it's less than the IRS deduction rate for business travel, which is 59.5 cents/mile, IIRC.)

I don't know. For that distance I can take the train for $30-$50 or the bus for $15-$40 because the bus has so many discounts. And the Acela only has BC and FC, unlike the $150-$200 prices for Y-class on a plane.

This assumes that the customer is extremely price-sensitive. Most airline passengers are not extremely price-sensitive, in that they will prefer air travel over bus/train/car travel at some level.

Frankly, most leisure travelers won't be on these $150 hops. The target market is business folks. For them, speed is key, and that is something driving or taking the bus cannot offer. Train service is so sporadic outside of the Northeast, California/West Coast, and Chicago areas that train isn't really a viable option for business travelers...who wants to try and schedule their meetings around a once-daily train?

Well, a lot of passengers are sensitive to price or time (or some relation of the two...I remember seeing a report regarding this that actually showed something of an average value of time at something like $20-30/hour from an Amtrak marketing study or a feasibility study.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Maybe so in FL, but I have seen 200- and 300-mile flights going for $150. Wayyy too expensive.

Is it, though? Acelas can easily reach $140 between WAS and NYP, which is on the low end of that. Even in more rural areas, it's not a horrible deal, especially on the 300-mile end (it's less than the IRS deduction rate for business travel, which is 59.5 cents/mile, IIRC.)

I don't know. For that distance I can take the train for $30-$50 or the bus for $15-$40 because the bus has so many discounts. And the Acela only has BC and FC, unlike the $150-$200 prices for Y-class on a plane.

Again, it depends on the market. Is there a (decent) bus on the route in question? How about a train? Does direct, frequent rail service exist?

On the route I'm talking about, a nice D4505 or refurbished 102DL3 (not as good) is good enough for such a low price! :wub: A dangerous, unconfortable Megabus-operated Van Hool TD925, just-as-bad curved-sidewall Prevost X3-45s, irregular buses, and basic 102DL3s aren't so good, though. A TD925 looks cool but seems to have too many accidents some of which are fatal and would not have happened with a defferent design. Sorry if you don't know about these buses, but I gave you the models, so check them out yourself if you don't know much about buses.

Maybe so in FL, but I have seen 200- and 300-mile flights going for $150. Wayyy too expensive.

Is it, though? Acelas can easily reach $140 between WAS and NYP, which is on the low end of that. Even in more rural areas, it's not a horrible deal, especially on the 300-mile end (it's less than the IRS deduction rate for business travel, which is 59.5 cents/mile, IIRC.)

I don't know. For that distance I can take the train for $30-$50 or the bus for $15-$40 because the bus has so many discounts. And the Acela only has BC and FC, unlike the $150-$200 prices for Y-class on a plane.

This assumes that the customer is extremely price-sensitive. Most airline passengers are not extremely price-sensitive, in that they will prefer air travel over bus/train/car travel at some level.

Frankly, most leisure travelers won't be on these $150 hops. The target market is business folks. For them, speed is key, and that is something driving or taking the bus cannot offer. Train service is so sporadic outside of the Northeast, California/West Coast, and Chicago areas that train isn't really a viable option for business travelers...who wants to try and schedule their meetings around a once-daily train?

The distances are short enough that upgraded trainsa can still be competetive, probably not the buses. And if you think that airline passengers are not price-sensitive than look at how much money super-low-cost NK is making compared to big legacies who lose cash all the time. I hate NK, though, they are just so bad, but as you can see, being bad could turn into much more money.

 

[No.6]

Frankly, most leisure travelers won't be on these $150 hops. The target market is business folks. For them, speed is key, and that is something driving or taking the bus cannot offer. Train service is so sporadic outside of the Northeast, California/West Coast, and Chicago areas that train isn't really a viable option for business travelers...who wants to try and schedule their meetings around a once-daily train?

... One of the best arguments for 'low speed' trains being that the Liesure market has always been significantly larger than the business market for travel. Oh sure, business people may be the best customers to have, given their reimbursed travel budgets and relative inelastic demand for travel services, but those traits don't change the fact that there are infact more people traveling for Liesure. This means that speed is not as much of a factor as most assume it to be. What also must be taken into account is a 'lowspeed' train's relative ease of serving rural populations between metropolitan centers. Those markets are proving to be evermore uneconomical for so-called private carriers to serve, as evidenced by some of Joe Boardman's recent statements. Finally, the argument for these kinds of trains can only be made more robust with a glance at Amtrak's load factors in the sleeping cars. The amount of pent-up demand for that type of service is just astounding.

 

[Nathanael]

It's worth noting that "leisure travel", in formal terms, includes everything from military personnel on shore leave, to people visiting dying relatives, to shopping! Basically anything which isn't business. Different leisure travel has different time sensitivities. A great deal of it depends on having daily service; a great deal more depends on having twice-daily service (morning and evening); high-frequency service will induce large increases in leisure travel.